nkreed

I'm confident that the WR is still Ramsey's responsibility there. Even if he's blocking, he needs to stay on his man. Hopefully someone who can diagnose man vs zone will let me know if this was a zone from 2 high, or a quarters look with the safety rotating down to put 8 in the box, leaving a cover 1 backend with the CBs having man responsibilities.

It also explains a ton about his overthrows with the wind at his back. Imagine a new stadium where the swirling wings are toned down.

Nope not you. Me?

That's your confirmation bias saying that. When looked at with a little more background, he can't say a thing. He was between a rock and a hard place. He could not confirm or deny anything coming his way.

Possibly. It could be confirmation bias too. (Not accusing you of anything purposely. Psychologically, humans don't want to be the odd one out when in a crowd) And I agree with your assessment. He was in a tough spot no doubt.

One thing in here that hasn't been mentioned yet is that MA is flying back with the team tonight.

I disagree completely with the second half. This is a tough thing that he is dealing with, walking the tight rope of saying something about it without saying anything at all. I don't believe there's a disconnect here, I think it's just an extremely difficult position for him to be in.

I don't. Because of this thread and how Twitter is, if he comes out and says that, well then, "The Bills think that gang rape is okay." Because that's exactly what has happened in the last 24+ hours.

Personally, that doesn't jive with his first statement. Specifically the part where McDermott says that his "heart and prayers go out to all involved, and that includes Matt..." This came on the heels of the Skurski question about Matt being a great kid. Is there a chance that the Bills know more information and that Ariza is being slandered and McD is angry at that? (I'm not saying that's the case)

John Wawrow's article explains why this was escalated: Gilleon said the decision to file the lawsuit three days after Araiza was awarded the punting job was the result of his growing frustration over the lack of feedback he was receiving from police on the progress of their investigation. “They’re just blowing us off,” Gilleon said. “By filing a lawsuit, we have the power of subpoena and so I can force them to do what they’re supposed to do.” Back last night I predicted this was to get the DA to do their job/influence their decision in bringing up criminal charges.

No. It's in the DAs hands to propose charges.

Obviously. We are awaiting the rape by intoxication charge from the DA... As you implied the allegation was made, to which I responded the allegation was made in a civil suit not a criminal suit

Hence why I said strongly implies.

The Civil one yes, not the criminal one.

The civil suit implies strongly that Ariza was involved in the gang rape. From the suit directly: Araiza then led Doe inside the house, past the living room, and into a bedroom. There were at least three other men already in the bedroom, including defendants Leonard and Ewaliko. Once inside, Araiza threw Doe onto the bed face first. Doe went in and out of consciousness while she was being raped, but she does remember some moments from the horrific gang rape.

To which we await the DA to make that determination.

Defense comes back with a bunch of witnesses who say she said her age in front of everyone, including Ariza. Then there is a reasonable way to determine her age without asking her directly.

Believe me I know that. It's why this civil case was filled today. I still sitting believe it's Jane Doe's attorney putting pressure on the DA to prosecute the statutory rape.

Look I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Dorkula, your same questions can be used on the Jane Doe with a simple cross examination of of the allegations asking if she had alcohol. How can she confirm that she told him she was under 18 if under the influence? Then it becomes a he said/she said. That's not going to play out well. WEO, you would bring up the question based on the only evidence, at this point, of him having sex with her came from the phone call. That should open the entire phone call up to cross examination.

On a phone call in which he is not under oath. I think a good defense attorney will state that the question asked was accusatory and that this answer was his way of ending the conversation. If the DA has access to witnesses that say she had been misrepresenting herself, he won't need to have a defense.

If you have a background in law, then you know that the DAs decision isn't made in a vacuum. If the DA can find plausible witnesses to the victim misrepresenting her age, combined with California case law, the DA will not bring that charge to court, understanding it's on them to prove she didn't. Ariza doesn't need to do a damn thing in that scenario.

Not trolling Doc. If fact BillShredder83 and I were saying the exact same thing. There have been a few on this thread who are assuming that Ariza purposefully gave the Jane Doe an STI. I was just pointing out that there was 11 days between the party and the phone call.

You're right, it's possible, and both of us don't know. That's all I wanted to say and not immediately assume that Ariza is a sketchy dude.

If his criminal attorney, who has spoken with the DA, can produce multiple witnesses saying she was purposely inflating her age, combined with the mistaken age ruling, a DA would need to prove that she didn't misrepresent beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can't, the likelihood of the charge goes down the drain. I still believe the blow up of this case now is because the DA needs to make a decision, and the Jane Doe lawyer is using the court of public opinion to make the DA charge Ariza. (No statement made on if that's a good or a bad thing, just a statement of facts) But not implausible. I think that we are keyboard warriors who are making decisions without evidence. I am not defending Ariza, just wanted to offer out a plausible explanation without calling him sketchy.